H & H Development, LLC v. Ramlow, 272 P.3d 657

H&H seeks to develop property near Eagle Bend in Bigfork, Montana, with Ramlow assisting in regulatory compliance.
Ramlow drafted a Boundary Adjustment and Golf Membership Agreement facilitating title transfers and density requirements.
Eagle Bend’s lawyers allegedly made untracked changes; Ramlow failed to review changes; both Slade House and Eagle Bend signed the revised agreement.
H&H filed a 2007 pro se Lake County complaint for professional negligence; the Lake County clerk did not issue summons and no service occurred.
H&H later filed a similar Flathead County complaint; amended in 2010 to add David House and Ramlow entities; Ramlow sought to strike the Lake County complaint as a nullity.
District Court granted summary judgment to Ramlow and the Firms in 2011; this appeal challenges that ruling and the related statute of limitations and relation-back issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Lake County pro se complaint on behalf of a corporation is a nullity.	H&H contends the complaint should not be treated as a nullity.	Ramlow argued the pro se filing by a non-attorney for a corporation is a nullity.	Remand to assess 15(c) relation back; merits not decided.
Whether the amended 2010 Flathead complaint can relate back under Rule 15(c).	Amendment should relate back to 2007 filing under 15(c).	Relation back may be unavailable due to nullity of original filing.	Remand to evaluate 15(c) criteria for relation back.
What statute of limitations governs to determine the timeliness of the malpractice claims.	A 5-year breach-of-contract period may apply.	Three-year professional malpractice period applies.	Three-year statute for professional malpractice applies.

Guest v. McLaverty, 332 Mont. 421, 138 P.3d 812 (2006 MT 150) (claims all sound in malpractice; mislabeling cannot extend limits)
Citizens Awareness Network v. Mont. Dept. of Envtl. Rev., 355 Mont. 60, 227 P.3d 583 (2010 MT 10) (relation back under 15(c) where appropriate)
Lampi v. Speed, 362 Mont. 122, 261 P.3d 1000 (2011 MT 231) (summary judgment standard; de novo review of law)
Weaver v. Law Firm of Graybill, Ostrem, Warne & Crotty, 246 Mont. 175, 803 P.2d 1089 (1990 MT) (non-lawyer cannot represent corporation at trial)
Continental Realty, Inc. v. Gerry, 251 Mont. 150, 822 P.2d 1084 (1991 MT) (corporation’s representation by non-lawyer not permitted)
Zempel v. Liberty, 2006 MT 220, 333 Mont. 417, 143 P.3d 123 (2006 MT) (non-lawyer representation; consequences described)
Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park, 699 N.W.2d 307 (2005 Minn.) (factors for cure of corporate filing defect; non-lawyer involvement)
Old Hickory Eng. and Mach. Co. v. Henry, 937 S.W.2d 782 (1996 Tenn.) (defect in filing when lawyer signature missing; cure not automatic)
Boydston v. Strole Development Co., 969 P.2d 653 (1998 Ariz.) (cure of pro se corporate complaints by later counsel;)
Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Insurance, 765 N.W.2d 691 (2009 N.D.) (agency case; pro se corporate representation considerations)
Prentice Lumber Co. v. Hukill, 504 P.2d 277 (1962 MT) (relation back and timing principles under 15(c))